The three problems stem from a common source: the need to contextualize scientific inquiry within a full view of the process and premises of science. Therefore, while Harwood and coworkers have presented valuable data and a reasonable interpretation of laboratory work, they have not answered the question of how this work relates to science and the methods of science in a larger sense.

The first problem is the complete absence of any connection to a proper understanding of hypothesis. Harwood and coworkers do well to document that hypothesis is often poorly discussed in textbooks and in the classroom. At the very least, hypothesis is commonly confused with prediction. But Harwood and coworkers, in their decision to organize inquiry around questions, lose hypothesis somewhere along the way. They write, “What is considered more valuable than stating a hypothesis is deriving good questions.” This begs the question: where are the questions derived from, if not from a hypothesis?

The second problem relates to theory. Harwood and coworkers do well to refute a common textbook error: that inquiry results in a theory in a linear fashion. But that theories do not come from scientific inquiry in this way does not mean that theories are unimportant. The data that Harwood and coworkers have published suggest that inquiry never results in anything but an answer to a question. Indeed, one of their conclusions is that “The process of conducting an inquiry investigation involves forming questions, reviewing the literature, articulating an expectation, designing and conducting the study, interpreting and reflecting on the results, and communicating the findings.” As with hypothesis, the neglect of theory as a category by Harwood and coworkers suggests there is no overall project, no overall goal, no overall result to the scientific method.

There is some sense that both hypothesis and theory may be present in the “defining the problem” stage of inquiry. But they write, “Scientists define a problem based on their observations and their understanding of the literature.” Except for the ill-defined role of “the literature”, however, there is no sense that any larger conceptual structure, like a hypothesis or theory, plays any role whatsoever.

The third problem relates to the social context of science. The inquiry wheel has one place where the external world seems to impact inquiry: through the combined interaction of the “scientific community” and “society” on “communicating the findings”. This recreates a view of science done in isolation from external factors. This view is highly problematic. The only external factor that they document is when critique by the scientific community prompts investigators to pose new questions. Society, outside of the peer–review process, is present only as a group that needs to be spoken to, not listened to. This isolationist viewpoint contrasts dramatically with the work of sociologists of science and science studies scholars over the last 30 years, who time and again document how social factors influence scientists’ decisions, ranging from what instruments are available for use to the actual language used to describe their work.

As I suggested, Harwood’s work is well done and potentially quite valuable. But it only represents inquiry in a day-to-day sense. Inquiry in a larger sense involves the formation and testing of hypothesis, the use of theory to guide experiment, and the interpretation of data, and also reflects the influences of culture and society. A proper view of “the scientific method”, therefore, includes Harwood’s findings as a component, not the entire story.

Literature Cited

1. Robinson, W. R. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 791.

See the authors' reply.